Decommissioning Challenges in the U. S. – Remediating Existing Legacy

Sites and Avoiding New Ones

Keith I. McConnell, Ph.D.Deputy Director, Division of Waste

Management and Environmental ProtectionU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Presented at: Nuclear Decommissioning 2012 – From Safe Decommissioning to Commissioning and Generation

Presentation Outline

• NRC’s Decommissioning Responsibilities

• NRC’s Current Decommissioning Universe

• Common Characteristics of Legacy Sites in the U.S.

• Factors that Increase Decommissioning Complexity and Cost

• Uranium Recovery Legacy Site Case Study

• Measures Taken to Prevent Legacy Sites

• Voluntary Industry Initiative

• Summary

NRC’s Decommissioning Responsibilities

• Regulatory oversight of decommissioning of civilian nuclear facilities

• Power Reactors

• Fuel Cycle Facilities• Fuel Cycle Facilities

• Materials Facilities

• Uranium Recovery Facilities

• Regulatory framework development for preventing legacy sites

NRC’s Current Decommissioning Universe

• 10 power & 2 early demonstration reactors• 11 test, training, & research reactors• 22 complex materials sites

1 j f l i f ili• 1 major fuel reprocessing facility • 42 uranium recovery sites

• Legacy sites• New facilities

Common Characteristics of Legacy Sites in the U.S.

• Large volumes of low specific activity radioactively contaminated liquids

• Large volumes of long-lived radionuclides

• Large throughputLarge throughput

• Liquid processes

• Processes that involve large quantities of solid radioactive material stored outdoors

Factors That Increase Decommissioning Complexity, Cost and Time• Spills

• Groundwater and soil contamination

• Increased waste inventoryc eased aste e to y

• Increased waste disposal costs

• Facility modifications

• Changes in authorized possession limits

• On-site disposal

• Use of unlined settling ponds

• Design and operating issues

Uranium Recovery Legacy Site Case Study

Before After

42 Uranium Recovery sites

• 38 Inactive conventional mills33 in decommissioning status

5 Completed decommissioning

NRC Uranium Recovery Sites in Decommissioning

5 Completed decommissioning (Licensed for long term stewardship)

• 4 Active ISRs – partial decommissioning

Title I Uranium Recovery Sites

Spook

Riverton

Lakeview

Lowman

Salt Lake City

Canonsburg and Burrell sites

9

Tuba City

Falls City

Mexican HatDurango

Shiprock

Gunnison

Rifle

Maybell

Naturita

Green River

Ambrosia Lake

Grand Junction

Monument Valley

Atlas

Canonsburg and Burrell sites located in Pennsylvania

Title II Uranium Recovery Sites in Decommissioning Title II Uranium Recovery Sites in Decommissioning

Pathfinder Lucky Mc

ANC Gas Hills

Umetco Gas Hills

Sweetwater( ti l ill t db )

Western Nuclear Split Rock

Exxon Highland

Union Pacific Bear Creek

Pathfinder Shirley BasinShi l B i S h

Edgemount

Sherwood

Maybell (Colorado)

Rio Algom (Utah)

1010

(conventional mill standby)

Rio Algom

Homestake

Shirley Basin South

UNC Church RockSequoyah Fuels

Arco-Bluewater

L-Bar

Uravan (Colorado)

Cotter Mill (Colorado))

Sweeney Mill, Colorado

Rio Grande, Everest, and Conoco (Texas)

Intercontinental andExxonMobile (Texas)Cogema (Texas)

• Milling activities peaked in the 1950’s to 70’s• Law governing uranium mill tailings (Uranium

Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act) – 1978• Standards promulgated in 1983

Historical Perspective on Regulatory Oversight :

• Regulations promulgated in 1985 (no ground water), amended 1987

• Regulatory framework finalized after the peak of milling

Uranium Recovery Decommissioning Lessons Learned• Adequate financial assurance to

prevent orphaned sites

• Groundwater contamination = Time + $ (€ £)Time + $ (€, £)

• Site Characterization, groundwater flow and transport modeling key

• Long-term stewardship confirms long-term performance

• Established regulatory framework essential to prevent legacy sites

Measures Taken to Prevent Legacy Sites• Standards and regulations for mill tailings sites (1980’s)

• Defined requirements for decommissioning existing and new uranium recovery mills (mining not included)

• General requirements for decommissioning of nuclear Facilities (1988)Facilities (1988)• Includes requirements for financial assurance

• Timeliness requirements for decommissioning (1994)• Establishes time frames for starting and completing

decommissioning

Measures Taken to Prevent Legacy Sites (cont.)• License Termination Rule (1997)

• Applicants required to describe how design and procedures for operation would minimize contamination and facilitate decommissioning

• Decommissioning Planning Rule ( 2011)• Licensees establish operational practices to minimize contamination and perform reasonable subsurface radiological surveys

• Prompt Remediation Rulemaking (?)• Effort underway

Voluntary Industry Initiative

Nuclear Energy Institute – Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative (07-07)

• ACTION 1: Improve management of situations involving inadvertent radiological releases that get into ground water

• ACTION 2: Improve communication with external stakeholders to enhance trust and confidence …

Summary:

• NRC has a long history of overseeing the remediation of legacy sites

• The characteristics and issues that lead to legacy sites are well understood

M h b t k t dd th• Measures have been taken to address these characteristics and issues

• NRC and licensees continue to evaluate other measures to avoid legacy sites

Decommissioning References• Uranium Recovery:

• U.S. NRC implementing regulations – 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A

• U.S. EPA standards for Uranium Recovery – 40 CFR192

• Other FacilitiesOt e ac t es• U.S. NRC regulations – 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E

• NUREG-1700 – Standard Review Plan for Evaluating Nuclear Power Reactor License Termination Plans

• NUREG-1757 – Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance

• NUREG-1575 – Multi-Agency Radiation Survey & Site Assessment Manual

• NUREG-1549 – Decision Methods for Dose Assessments

Website Information

U.S. NRC – www.nrc.gov

U.S. EPA – www.epa.gov